How do you respond to Bart Ehrman? // Ask NT Wright Anything
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- NT Wright responds to Bart Ehrman's critique of the reliability of the Gospels and shares some of his experience interacting with the sceptical Bible scholar.
For the podcast, updates, bonus content and to ask your own questions register at www.askntwright...
***
Ask NT Wright Anything is the regular podcast that connects you to NT (Tom) Wright’s thought and theology by allowing you to ask the questions.
Presented by Justin Brierley. Brought to you in partnership with Premier, SPCK & NTWrightOnline
To quote from Misquoting Jesus, page 252, by Bart Ehrman, "Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times… If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement - maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in Misquoting Jesus does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. What he means by that (I think) is that even if one or two passages that are used to argue for a belief have a different textual reading, there are still other passages that could be used to argue for the same belief. For the most part, I think that is true.”
Was it not Metzger who pointed out that Ehrman posits various things in his popular works that he would not dare to say in his more scholarly writings? Without having heretofore read much of either of German's stuff (albeit having watched a fair numbers of his YT videos), I would contend that whether it is Metzger or another scholar, that such a criticism seems valid.
@@colinwrubleski7627 I heard William Lane Craig say that once.
@@colinwrubleski7627 But I thought Bart says “wE dOnT hAvE tHe oRiGiNaLs.” Frank Turek has said that. For example Bart thinks there’s contradictory issues between the gospels when in reality they’re typical complimentary eye witness testimony, not a true A, non-A contradiction.
Mike Licona said it and perhaps Bill Craig
@@therockstar17 Bart says crazy stuff painting a totally different picture than what he actually writes in his published works. Even in them he often paints one picture like in misquoting Jesus that it's so unreliable then when flat out asked he states completely to the contrary that it's reliable so he can get away with saying to his peers he believes virtually exactly the same thing yet in public paint another picture to be controversial and for self promotion. More people need to call out his behavior lol.
The scientism described by CS Lewis back in the 40's and 50's has taken on a life of its own today. The literary market for anti-Christian narratives is incredibly broad. But, the new arguments are nothing more than the old arguments.
Bart's entire body of work misses the forest for the trees. Mere variations in text between the Gospels don't change the fact that Jesus died and was resurrected. It's not a textual debate. It's a historical one. Why we keep on and on about differences in the details between eyewitness testimonies is beyond me.
I think it’s a theological one. Bart Ehrman isn’t trying to convince people Christianity is wrong. That’s not his job. So if someone believes the resurrection happened, they should be allowed to because that’s based on faith. However, as a historian, no, there is no evidence for the resurrection. Doesn’t mean you can’t believe it if you are religious, but it would mean there’s no historical basis for it.
So does it matter if the oldest copy of a manuscript goes back to the 3rd century? You can have thousands of copies of a none genuine or fabricated copy. Does this matter? I think you should watch Bart’s debates with an open mind
You fail to understand how copies of copies are proof of inerrancy. You see these copies have been found all over the world and all have the same message. If you out your bias aside, that means that the original manuscripts had the same message. The copies w were carefully written so that should the originals be destroyed, the message would not be lost.
What Muslims fail to see ironically is that the Quran commands them to ask the people of the Book for info regarding Jesus and that the Quran is meant to be the culmination and the fulfilment of the NT and the OT.
If the Bible is corrupt, how come the Quran asks Muslims to read the Bible? Does that mean that Allah cannot preserve his word as apparently the Bible is corrupt? What's worse is that the message of the Bible totally contradicts the Quran. God's grace and love vs subjugation, Jesus dying vs not dying, Jesus being less important that Mohd and yet Jesus is in heaven and Mohd is still in the grave. I could go on.
@@remainhumble6432 who cares if you have 1 million copies of something if you can't even tell if the original was reliable or not.
as for the quran asking muslims to read or gather info or rely on the bible in any way, provide a source please, unlike you we don't accept random statements without proof.
@@SimpleReally the problem is whether you actually understand that thousands of copies right across the planet saying the same things are actually proof of the original. Now whether that just goes over your head and whether you are actually genuinely seeking Truth is not up to me but entirely in your court.
And as for accusing me of not having evidence on what I am saying, unlike you.... Really? Is that misplaced arrogance really necessary. But anyhow read the following and see how your own prophet consulted the Torah and Injeel repeatedly.
Surah 10:94
Surah 29:27
Surah 2 :126-129
Surah 6:154-157
Surah 42:13
Surah 4 :136
Surah 41:43
Surah 40:78
Surah 2:4
Surah 2:177
Enjoy. You are welcome BTW. 😉
The difference with this ancient text is that humanity created a world view based on it
Even NT Wright can be right.
The snack plate looks yummy!
The problem is that did Jesus claim to be God personally? How much percent of Christianity today belongs to the teachings of Jesus ?
I think Bart Ehrman is being misrepresented by a strawman.
1) We know that speeches were almost never copied word for word but that authors invented what they thought to be the core message of the speaker. This means that we are getting what the *authors* thought the message was.
2) The 7 interpolated passages including the trinity are evidence that substantive changes were made to the gospels.
3) We know of for a fact that there are more than 7 interpolated passages (this leaves aside the words we know of that were changed). The issue is not the passages we know about, but rather the ones we do not.
4) To say that the gospels well attested is an outright fabrication. What NT means by well attested is that we have many 5th to 10th century copies. For the first we have no complete copies of what was written for the first 300 years.
5) We have no partial (50% or more) copies for at least the first 300 years.
6) We only have small fragments for the first 300 years none of which add up to a complete copy.
7) Scribes had a vested interest in changing the text to suit their theological bias.
8) The scribes Mathew and Luke are examples of this as they altered Mark to suit their own purposes.
The long speeches attributed to Jesus in John's Gospel just didn't happen.
Who had the tape recorder?
The themes in John's Gospel - the latest Gospel out the official four - are very different to the others.
Even some of the "facts" are different (which day did Jesus die on?).
They are the product of an inventive mind with a religious agenda.
Do you really think the original autographs communicate a different message than what we have today in the New Testament? If not, then you’re splitting hairs.
Gospel of Matthew shows Jesus Christ's kingly status by showing His lineage through the king David. According to prophecies Christ has to be from the tride of Judah and a descendent of David.
Mark shows his service as a faithful servant of God.
Luke shows that He is a genuine man to die for man's sins for God cannot die. Luke trace back Jesus's human ancesters all the way to Adam, the first man.
Gospel of John shows that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, thus no genealogy is need for He is God.
Each gospel shows different aspect of Jesus Christ.
At least try to learn some basic about the bible objectively and argue.
I find it rather amusing that a “scholar” like Wright can insist that he knows what is in the original documents, but there are none. His argument is that the originals can be reproduced from the copies, but unfortunately since there are NO copies from the first 300 years of the religion, how could anyone know? They can’t!
Face it, what survives is copies of “Catholic” approved/written books….
That’s not good enough, but nice try NTW
So at 1:30 he literally admits that people might have added or deleted text to the bible and then proceeds to say that the Bible is no different than any other book that anyone else writes. Very interesting, i respect him for saying that. It's about time that Christians give up this silly notion that the Bible is the original unchanged inspired word of God. If it was before, it no longer is today. In that, he and Bart are in agreement.
_Was_ it the "inspired word of God" before? That's not at all clear (and I doubt Ehrman would agree with that bit). We would need both (a) evidence of God existing, and (b) evidence they definitely inspired the original texts of what became the Bible to claim what you just said. I'm not aware of us having either of those things.
@@majmage yeah I'm starting off on a premise of belief. That comment was not meant for atheists or agnostics. it was meant for my believing Christian Brothers\sisters.
@@m00dy7 So you're fine just ignoring the fact that we have no basis for believing this book was the inspired word of God? I don't really see what relevance it has _who_ your statement was intended for -- no matter the audience, if we could prove this was the word of God, you could've done that. But you didn't...
@@majmage of course it makes a difference who the statement was intended for and who the audience is. That's fundamentals of speech and writing, know your audience! My comment was specifically and narrowed to others that believe in god. Not intended for those that have no belief. if you want to have this discussion that's fine but I don't want to hijack this comment thread with another topic. I'll post a new comment on the video and you can reply to that. Look for it. This is my last reply on this thread regarding your comment.
Bart just wants to claim that the whole thing is a sham because the eyewitnesses couldn't have written the Gospels and all that was written was basically hearsay 30 or 40 years later. His parents must be proud.
Not what Bart says
@@MarthaEllen88 That's part of what he says. He threw off his faith, don't really have any use for him. God loves him, but he has destroyed the faith of many.
Tom missed the point that Bart 100% agrees that 99.9% of the bible manuscript discrepancies don’t matter. What Bart says is that if the scribes copying it could make errors and have personal biases why don’t we accept that the original authors could make errors and have personal biases. Though my goodness Tom has a beautiful voice. Is voice envy a thing cuz I got voice envy.
Blessed are those who have not seen but believed in Jesus Christ. Not everybody believed Jesus when he came to the world..only a few. The bible is true. It is the word of God..inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The bible cannot save..anyone..John 5:39
[39]Ye search the scriptures, for ye think that in them ye have life eternal, and they it is which bear witness concerning me;
Matthew 23:34
[34]Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye will kill and crucify, and some of them ye will scourge in your synagogues, and will persecute from city to city;
Ehrman Wright debate please!
Ehrman Geisler debate !
And Evangelical pastors want me to see this guy as an enemy.
Bart's books list all historical facts and documents. That info is taught at all bible colleges for last 100yrs+, all pastors know it, but no one telling the truth to their church!
@Mupp Bert Bible itself admits that the Bible contains lies. Jeremiah 8:8 "but behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie". Actually your fellow Christians who have been to bible college will admit the Bible can't be the inerrant word of God. There's lots of irreconcilable contradictions in the Bible - if one is true the other can't be true, so which one is it?!
God sent the Quran (final revelation) to reform the Torah and Gospel that became a "Bible" compiled by man...Hadiths another manmade "Islamic bible" are Satan's attempt to corrupt Islam, the way true Christianity got corrupted and became Anti-christ instead!
@@zahara6355 Actually, there are plenty of manuscripts from around about the time of Mohamed and many from before. When Mohamed stated the bible was the true word of God he was referring to the bible of his time, hence he said to ask the people of the book if there were any queries. Therefore, as we can be confident the Bible has not been corrupted since the time of Mohamed an academic defeater presents itself against Islam.
@@fogboquiz5700 I know why the Quran says to Mhd's ppl in the 7th century "ask those who had the scripture before you" - because it's proof it's the same msg AND the ppl who already have a scripture have been advised of this coming prophet Mhd. The ppl who manipulated the Bible hid it from later generations.
With that proof from the early Christians, Islam grew quickly from one person to thousands. Today, Christians who can understand the signs in the Quran would be the first to recognize that truth, more than a born Muslim!
@@zahara6355 well your speculation seems baseless, unless if you want to put that gospel of barnabas in your argument, you didnt even put any evidences regarding your claim but only from the quran. The scriptures contain the same messages but not your twisted and falsely interpretation one, the final prophecy from the Old testament is the Messiah ruling as the High Priest,King,Prophet where this Messiah had exist since the ancient times and by the New testament it was regarded the Word(Memra) in the flesh(John 1:14) the final prophecy isnt another prophet bringing another interpretation appearing as a person outside King David bloodline and from the arabian tribe to fit his desire while containing several myths and legends from biblical stories whom he heard from the locals. Youre not putting any proof regarding your claim, while muhammad can only fit the bible prophecy as the false prophet
I would love to see Bart and Tom on the show for a discussion (not necessarily a debate though)
Bart Ehrman's strongest points haven't convinced me. Ehrman himself says that although there are many variations in the New Testament manuscripts, NONE of them compromises Christian doctrine.
Yeah they do compromise Christian doctrine. For e.g. trinity., there's no mention of the father being 3 in 1
Who cares about "Christian doctrine"?
Dr Ehrman's point is not about Christian doctrine. His point is that there is solid evidence that supports the notion that we can't say for sure what the gospel authors originally wrote. He supports this notion with the fact that Mark was estimated to have been written somewhere around 70AD, but the earliest scrap of Mark that we actually have was created around 220AD (P45). We do have copies of Mark that were made after this one, but they are few. Monks started making lots of copies in the 9th century. These copyists were well trained and made few errors/changes. Between 220AD and the 9th century was a different story though. In the few copies we have that were made during that period there are many more errors/changes. So ... the earlier a copy was made the higher the likelihood there were errors and/or changes. This makes a strong (if not airtight) case that there were most likely lots of changes to Mark between it's original writing and the earliest small scrap we have. This makes his convincing case that we can't say that what we have today for Mark is "authoritative" if by that term you mean we know what the author of Mark actually wrote. What Christian doctrine is based on is something quite different.
Bob Snead
Maybe, or maybe not. But, even if Mark doesn’t exist, that is only 1 out of 4 gospels, 37 out of NT, and 66 out of the Bible. The revelation from the remaining books about God and the gospel are still the same.
@@tarnos4153 yeah. I mean its not like theres more to the story of every single book of the mew testament, rightm
Mark's the only one with a hinky past.
All the others are 100%...fine.
FFS
". . .we can jolly well go back. . ." I love the way English people talk.
sablin that’s because your an imbecile.
@@johnpaulmccarthy6112 And regrettably, you spelled "your" when it should have been "you're", though you're correct that Sablin is on the imbecile spectrum!
But he botched Suetonius, as do most people-except Bart, ha.
British English sounds to me like a man having a constipation.
technically, the british invented the language, so... they can "jolly well" say however they like
Those two would make for an interesting show. You should definitely do that.
I love his accent. He sounds like the history teacher I didn’t have
agree 100% he captures the Audience and he is very cordial to all!
Check out Kevin Hicks host of The History Squad.
I love how there are so many "professional" Bible scholars in the comments section.
I'm so glad that I don't need to go to a distinguished college, now I can just argue with someone on UA-cam and the degree magically appears!
@J M You can’t refute a fact.
@J M you know I can refute your koran here and now
Hafs 37:12 "But you wondered..."
Warsh 37:12 "But I wondered..."
Which is the one from heaven mhmedan?
Your ŕèĺìģion is nothing but man made 😂
*Yasir qadhi: Standard narrative has got holes in it*
Allahu ackbar mate 😚
@J M dude, you just totally liked your own comment 😂 why you mzlms so desperate?
Oh and I totally like how you brush away my pointed obvious contradiction so I'll ask you this time, what's the difference between "I and you" ? Three books use different persons in the same verse, not different accents but different words and meanings which change the whole verse 😂
Oh and btw, at least in b-ble it says the additional verses added in your fabricated books you got nothing, you have one old koran containing 116 suras while another contains 111 or 112 suras
And if you have the 7 qiraats as you say you do, what exactly did uthman burn and *leave only one copy off* ?
😂🤣😂🤣😂
You mzlms are hilarious attacking the b-ble when you know koran is a far more corrupt book
I literally just proved to you that the allah of the koran doesn't exist
@@acelinomckinzie1956 As a Christian: the Bible is not historical fact. Some parts are and some are not.
Stop saying it is. It makes us look bad.
I find Bart Ehrman to have rather simplified arguments for the non existence of god. How do we know anything happened in history without documents and word of mouth? Does Bart question all history, or just the parts related to god and Christ? As a matter a fact the Bible is the most well documented manuscript ever made. And historical events like the crucification of Jesus are very well documented, witnessed by countless people who give very similar accounts of what transpired.
False, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian manuscripts rain supreme! Stop making Christianity a pro-logic movement, Our religion is about faith.
The Crucifixion is not well documented. Documented enough for us to say it most certainly happened, but nowhere near enough to say what happened there. We don't know for certain when Jesus died, the extent of Pontius Pilate's involvement, where he was exactly crucified, who took him down from the cross after his death, where he was buried (if he was at all), who saw his apparently empty tomb, etc. You'll find discrepancies if not missing blanks for every one of these questions.
@@alifleih Dates are not really important.. where it was year 1 or year 3 is irrelevant.. it happened during Pontious pilates time as governor ,what is really important is the story of Jesus ,that christianity contrary to any other religion , have 4 witness of Jesus miracles and teachings. And you didn't saw the video when it was told there are hundreds of witness of jesus story. The bible did not include all of them ,because it will be a repetitive story. But in the real world, today.. When police wants to solve a crime incident.. they need witness to reconstruct a crime scene.. and just 1 witness can be enough to send someone to jail. so guess what? Jesus story in the bible have 4 witness ,that tells their version of the story oof jesus life.. then outside of the bible there are hundreds of witness who knew jesus and wrote about him.. stories outside the bible.. like the letter that Pilates wrong to Caesar about Jesus and how he did not found any wrong doing on him.. He even describe Jesus as a blond man,, with celestial appearance and blond beard. that was very different to every other man . there is also the Gospell of Mary , the Gospell of THomas and the Gospell of Judas.. All tell the same story of jesus crucifiction and how he did miracles.
Your perspectives and experiences always color your opinion on the evidence. I am an attorney. In the law, it is axiomatic that no witness sees the same accident. This is not a prejudice; it is grounded on a lot of experience. Therefore, small differences in the Gospels are not something that would concern me a lot. In fact, if they were in perfect accordance with each other, it would raise suspicions that the authors conspired with one another for some reason.
That may not be a problem for you, but the differences in the Gospels raise questions as to biblical inerrancy which is something held by the Catholic church as well as by a considerable portion of evangelicals.
@@prometheus3498 Biblical inerrancy is held by the Catholic Church? Can you provide a source to back up this claim?
@@annat4209 No problem, but fair warning, this is going to be long.
Firstly, you have the Catechism of the Caltholic Church which clearly states in Part 1/Section 1/Chapter 2/Article Three (Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture) that "The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and WITHOUT ERROR teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."
Moving beyond that, we also have clear doctrinal statements from various popes which affirm biblical inerrancy. For example, Pope Leo in Providentissimus Deus (20-21) stated that "For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily, as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. . . . It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration or make God the author of such error".
Pope Pius has also continuously supported biblical inerrancy in his works like the Lamentabili Sane (where he condemned the proposition of biblical errors) and Divino Afflante Spiritu (37) where he claimed that " the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, except sin, so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error”.
I could keep on going talking about a bunch of different Popes who confirmed biblical inerrancy but I think I've made my point.
@@prometheus3498 Thank you for the sources, I appreciate it. Will look into this
Err they disagree as to what Joseph's father was called when Matt and Luke both try to show he was descended from Abraham
Look at the person Jesus Christ first and foremost. If we don’t have that personal connection to Him we have nothing.
“I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.”
John 15:5 ESV
Well done NT wright
I mean, having more copies doesn't make it more likely to be original. Compared to the greek classics, scribes have much more reason to make changes because of theological reasons.
Exactly. Always upsetting when scholars cannot be forthright.
no, there would be no reason to change the Bible in order to reinforce or protect the dogma. we have millions of copies of the Bible and the differences are extremely miniscule.
as far as we live today in 2024, we have so many different sects, denominations and theologians that constantly debate eachother about Christianity.
this has always been a tradition. debate is something that is always been part of Christianity.
the Church is famous for having councils amongst bishops.
this is in fact healthy and taken from Greek philosophy.
@@LevisH21 are you just ignoring the massacres led by the Christians against those who they called heretics? And the burning of any book they deemed opposing “orthodox” dogma??
@@tookie36he’s just putting the filter of his faith infront of his studies, Bart ehrman doesn’t do what NT wright does, Bart looks and the New Testament as a scholar and historian, wright looks at it as a theologian and practitioner
I think ehrman when you read him isnt scary at all, and hes quite intelligent. He stop believing because he thought God was implausible, so of course hes going to explain the resurrection with a naturalistic lense, if you dont believe in God theres no other way to see it
Yes. Church's are the problem. It sickens me the way every single Republican President has 2 bow to the church. They have NO business being involved politically. It goes against the Constitution. People like Franklin Graham uses his "pulpit" 2 tell "Christians" who 2 vote 4. It's none of his damned business.
Maybe. But Ehrman is more than qualified 2 give his views. He is a force 2 be reckoned with. The church leaders know this. They R terrified of him. Terrified of losing there money. "Follow the money." Ehrman started out like any good Christian. But as is the case, 4 the rest of us, the more U learn, the more disillusioned U become.
No one isn't saying is unintelligent but he's scary in that he's leading people to hell on a viewpoint that frankly isn't even supported by other historians
@@mustang8206 could you elaborate on how his viewpoint isn't mainstream? I'm curious to know
@@dahyunbibimbap9850 his less mainstream opinion would be the idea that Jesus wasn't buried, he has admitted himself that most historians tend to argue he would have been buried, i would ask why if he was trying to "lead people to hell" why would he admit that his opinion is a minority one. He even in a blog post recommended a scholar dale allison who argued jesus would have been buried, so ehrman is willing to engage in debate and share differing views, like scholars are supposed to
Even if we had, say, the very original Gospel of Mark, in his own handwriting, all we'd know is what Mark wrote. Wouldn't tell us if it's factual. And it could still be objected that he was biased or incomplete, etc. and that this was the original lie.
This kind of argument, that we don't have the original, is about infinite regress.
Objections aren't proofs.
Seedofwonder. Quite so. Congratulations on passing the logic 101.
But you must have noticed that there is a kind of skeptical mind for which no form of evidence is ever sufficient, except for the particular worldview in which it is embedded and submerged and which it mistakes for reality itself.
@@polemeros Absolutely. It applies equally to both sides. Whether a skeptic or an apologist, the most important questions transcend the documentary realm.
seedofwonder neither is just “faith”
We would have the further problem that we don’t know the context of what he writes down. One tradition has it that he was the companion ion Peter and that “Mark” is really his version of a long sermon by Peter.
great new tsetament scholar
Thanks for all the good content. Would love to hear a debate between the two of them one day!
I hate when apologists try to say that we have way more manuscripts than other ancient documents. That doesn't matter at all. We don't build religions aren't Plato or Homer. We don't claim Plato or Homer is the infallible word of God. I'm fine saying that the Bible is mostly reliable, but we can't say that it's 100% perfect.
Or _factual_ , where the magic bits are concerned.
Bart looks debached and miserable.
I have heard Dr Ehrman say that the Bible is THE most well-documented book from ancient times based on original materials (paraphrased, as well as I can recall.) Seems to me that Wright and Ehrman agree on this point.
well documented in this sense
ua-cam.com/video/3JEiFo0LbjI/v-deo.html
The rot had already impregnated into Christianity by the time Constantine's cronies got his hands on the books.
Pity stronger questions were not put to NT W. on this occasion
"how do you respond to Bart Ehrman"?
the same way you respond to anybody you debate: be creative and give an answer you can back up with evidence. if you fail, then try again. don't scare yourself into thinking he's going to make you deconstruct, the ratio of Barts to Wrights is 1:1. think for yourself, buy a commentary, brew some tea, and make your own (reasonable) interpretations.
Sorry brothers to ask this question here: Please what microphones are there in the video? Thanks.
I don't know for sure, but it looks like they're using Shure SM7B'S www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/SM7B--shure-sm7b-cardioid-dynamic-vocal-microphone
Hope that helps!
It's also the post production and preamps that create clear audio, not just the mic. Sound proofing room, Zoom or Tascam preamp.
Shure SM7b
Ehrman hath a "devil." He has unwittingly invited a, "Lying Spirit,"
within his Soul/Mind. I hope to GOD Almighty he wakes Up before
Too long!
The worst part about Bart is that he doesn't even hold the majority viewpoint among scholars
Misquoting . He always points out majority
nice soundbite... doesn't answer the question... sure having 100000 copies, doesn't mean a thing... when you don't have originals
Bart Ehrman is a sad story. He once was a believer and now he has regressed into a complete apostate from the faith. What happened to this man? He not only writes books attacking the reliability and integrity of the Bible and Jesus' claims to be God, he has now reached the point of even questioning the very existence of God. By denying Jesus' claims to be the Son of God, Ehrman now possesses the spirit of anti-Christ (cf. I John 4:1-3). Unless he changes his ways, he will one day stand before the very one he now denies and will do so as an apostate and anti-Christ. For the sake of his eternal soul, I hope he returns to Jesus before it is everlastingly too late.
I would LOVE to see a debate between these historical and theological heavy weights, respectively.
There is a recent 2019 debate between Bart Ehrman and Peter J. Williams (Principal, Tyndale House, Cambridge University) with Justin Brierley moderating. Recorded in July and released this Fall (link): ua-cam.com/video/ZuZPPGvF_2I/v-deo.html
Williams did a poor job against Ehrman
How can you be a 'heavyweight' believer in myths?
@@frankwhelan1715 ha. ha.
@@frankwhelan1715
Can you prove that those are myths ?
New testament was on a blockchain before it was fashionable.
The Gospels are not JUST historical accounts written in a grecoroman biography style about Jesus. It's much more than that, and of course Ehrman being a natiralist cannot comprehend that. It's a kind of gps about the soul's way back to the Father. It's nearly a necessity of reading the Bible and especially the New Testament with a theological context of a Platonic and Neoplatonic framework.
Copies of copies ... aka more changes than all the worlds on the New Testament ... some of the critical ones being added later on etc
Ehrman is a disappointed lover. Unclothed, the girl of his dreams is not as he imagined her, So her human flaws bother him inordinately.
So the Bible presents the God of your dreams? The God of the Bible seems pretty nightmarish to me! And I note that dreams are usually not realities.
The problem with your analogy is that we are not talking a human incarnation of God appearing before you but an ancient book written by (largely) anonymous men in languages we don't speak for reasons we can only guess. What makes you believe this book is the "word of God"?
Not a good analogy. You speak of human flaws but is the bible of man..or God? If man..obviously...there will be flaws...if God...then really...should there be flaws?. I would think not.
To often people attempt to humanize the supposed works of an all knowing, timeless...blah...blah...blah...God. You discredited yourself...and your imagination.
Supposedly he existed in some timeless...spaceless realm before the universe began...then...created a universe..a possibly infinite mind blowing universe. And you credit this "God" with creating your inconsistent & confusing and often times cruel and abusive piece of work you call a bible.??...unbelievable...
Sorry...human flaws do bother me...but I try to find a way to accept mine and those of others. In regards to those of the humans that produced the bible..I have come to accept them and move on.
This is unfortunately not Erhman's case. Erhman himself has said multiple times that it was not biblical inconsistencies (and that in fact he was still a Christian many years after accepting biblical inconsistencies) that caused him to lose his faith but rather the problem of suffering
@@leohale403 What is the problem of suffering?
@@oliverduke1173 I meant the problem of evil, the question of how to reconcile presence of evil and suffering with an omniscience, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent God. I just called it "problem of suffering" because when I call it "problem of evil", people sometimes want to debate the definition of evil, which isn't really the point of the question.
i also want to emphasize the role of having trust in the early church. that is a huge deal and is basically the difference between being a skeptic and a believer.
It’s more than “one or two texts” that aren’t certain.
Would like to see NT Wright debate Bart Erhman. That would be epic
it doesn't work like that, because we don't care whether or not Lucretius really existed, we just value the writings because they hold some sort of wisdom; it might have come from someone else altogether (we say it's Lucretius because this is how it appears but in actuality we don't give a toss). However, in the case of Jesus it's important no matter the content, we must ensure that it comes from him cos , allegedly, our life depends on that. When it comes to jesus we have to have a special approach not found anywhere else.
I disagree. It is important that we can take Jesus as a man like us, that the Scriptures tell was a true story,
@@JRobbySh Well, Jesus, allegedly, was a man like us but not only like us, he was also fully god. So our approach must be a unique approach because the claims are big and the stakes are high. We don't know whether the scriptures are true, no matter how much we want them to be true. Which copy, which translation? We wouldn't have so many denominations if the story were universally true.
Mihai Manolache
Special pleading
@@mickqQ The point he makes is valid. Whether or not "Lucretius" wrote those works is a matter of historical curiosity and nothing more. It really doesn't matter. The Bible and the Qur'an (and any books that people claim are "God's Word") are another matter. If big and important claims are made about these books and their contents then the historicity and authenticity must be considered very seriously.
If a cult developed that believed Lucretius was a god and the works of Lucretius are divine then the same considerations would apply to those works (in the context of the claims of said cult) as apply to the Bible and the Qur'an.
endofscene
Words should be judged on what is said ,
Not on who is saying them .
To say we have to make a special case for Jesus, is to already admit there is something special about Jesus.
From what I know- Bart left Christianity not for finding the whole thing to be a sham or the data not being enough, but for personal and philosophical reasons, namely the problem of evil and suffering.
I think it was for lots of money and sexual encounters outside of marriage. And who knows what else. In other words, he embraced evil things which he no longer wants to call evil. They are. But he gets away with it, in his mind, if there is no God.
He's turned his back on God. He embraces evil now but calls it nothing. He has no reason not to lie lie about his reasons for turning on God. He's an atheist. He doesn't have to tell the truth, now. And doesn't want to. He's in the devil's playground.
@@tatie7604 ???? I don’t know- do you have evidence for that? From his own testimony it’s cause of questions of evil.
Epicurus , Homer , Virgil , whoever . Lets not pretend that anyone is claiming that any of these people were the son of god . One would expect , at least , a higher standard of proof if one is asserting that anybody is / was god made man
If the gospels are divinely written I am sure the author had no problem in publishing them, the rest from us is just wasted wind😮
Bart Ehrman's arguments are ones that could only be argued from the position of someone living two thousand years after the facts. It has to assume what was available to each generation as we go back in time. It ignores the content of the text about how it was written and treats it outside of it's claimed, spiritual author. How many original (autographs) did the writer of Lukes gospel produce? One? Twenty? 50?
The internal text has Jesus after his resurrection with his eleven remaining disciples for forty days, so who says the gospels we'rent written and established then? Paul quotes the events of the gospels, so what makes us think he was trying to remember oral sayings, rather than having the gospels himself to study? This is because modern scholars have said they were written decades after the events. But why do they say that? What's their evidence?
To the critic these are embellishments and fraud:
Mark 13
:11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.
Luke 1
:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Luke 24
:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Act 1
:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
:2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
John 21
:1 After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself.
:2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.
John 21
:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
1 Peter 1
:24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
2 Peter 1
:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
___
Luke 22
:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
1 Corinthians 11
:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1 Corinthians 10
:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
1 Corinthians 10
:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
___
Revelation 1
:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
Can you please upload the Debate between Professor Wright and Dr. Eherman?
Ehrman's views require extreme scepticism about history. He also claims that memories are too unreliable for the gospels to be accurate recollections of Jesus' words. If that's true no oral tradition is accurate. The Iliad and the Odyssey were oral tradition. The Buddhist scriptures were an oral tradition for 400 years before being written down.
The gospels are closer to Jesus' time than a lot of other ancient writings are to the original event.
The thing is, there were people(such as the Hebrews) who made a lifestyle out of precise oral tradition. The Hebrews were also much more thorough when it came to copying. The problem is the New Testament was transmitted by anyone who could read and write, often under hidden conditions because they feared being persecuted. The accuracy standards are just not there. Likewise(though slightly off topic) a collection of religious men decided what texts were going to be included in the bible and you know its impossible to remove bias from a religious person. We may be missing half of the original bible for all we know.
Homer's writings were meant to be stories and Buddhism is a tolerant, general philosophy. Christianity is not a very tolerant belief(many would argue that they're not following Jesus very well), often leading people to completely alter their lives, alienate their families, attempt to deny homosexuals their rights etc. You have to admit it's FAR more important that we make sure a book like that is extremely accurate than what people always view as a story(Homer). Heck, even by Christian standards missing key components in the overall message can lead to divine punishment...
@@thomasakatidalforce7987 The textual differences between the NT manuscripts are not enormous. And the point I was making was that if we apply extreme scepticism about memories consistently, you wouldn't know that Buddhism is a "tolerant, general philosophy". The historical Buddha could have been a warlord for all you know. We can only go by the evidence of the early Buddhist texts as to who the historical Buddha was - and they were written down after a 400 year period of oral transmission.
@@oliverford5367 Yeah, I do see what you're saying and you do make a solid point. There are also many many thousands of Greek texts for the New Testament which far outstrips any other historical person.
However, I do think it's valid to point out(for any historical figure it applies to) there is lack of third party, uninterested commentary on the events of the NT. There is some mention of Christ and Christians but the only mention of Jesus in the "supernatural" sense is from a Christian holy book.
I'm curious because you seem like a learned individual, do you subscribe to the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Or do you feel the same standards apply no matter what event is being claimed as true?
@@thomasakatidalforce7987 I think the same standards apply, otherwise it's not disinterested science. Who decides what is "extraordinary"? But thus doesn't mean I believe that everything in the NT happened. The infancy narratives are very hard to believe, and you're right if "the bodies of many holy people came to life" you'd think Josephus and other authors would have mentioned it!
@@oliverford5367 Yes you do bring up good points. The same standards perhaps should apply, but there is also a common sense standard. You're right, if people were raised from the dead and walls crumbled at the precise moment someone died from crucifixion then it's logical to assume the story would be mentioned everywhere, if even in an attempt to debunk the claims.
However, you may have unintentionally brought up another point about the Bible. The book(s) may(in fact, some say probably) have never been intended to be taken as literal history. Maybe they were just written to prove a point or to spread a philosophy...such would certainly change the standards of criticism in a sense it would be a critique of the philosophical idea and not the historicity.
No, it doesn’t matter how many copies you have, it’s irrelevant. What matters is: do you have the original texts ? Also, what exactly does “original” mean ? The text that a writer first wrote, including notes ? The text the writer “intended” to be the finished text based on the “first written” text(s) ?
Similarly to WLC’s struggle to erode Ehrman’s point of view that the resurrection is *not* the most plausible explanation for the resurrection because Ehrman is an atheist historian, Wright tries to make the same point based on Ehrman’s previously rigid fundamentalist Christian background. The gist being that Ehrman is not depending on scholarship, rather on a presupposition of implausibility -no matter what. This is merely Christian gymnastics once again to prove what cannot be proved.
Presuppositionalism is just solipsism, the most lazy point of view possible.
But Ehrman is depending on his assumption that no amount of evidence would ever justify belief in something like a resurrection. That's a sign of bad faith on Ehrman's part.
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”
Matthew 24:35 There is a God who is personal and because we are personal and we cannot claim to know more than our creator and I believe and trust in God and the best evidence for him that he is powerful enough to perfectly preserve his word. And if Jesus was who he said he was and ride from the dead, then life and reality is far more complex that simple naturalism which cannot explain these issues
How can you verified 1000 copies, what methods do you used ?
Text had to be same but the interpretation could differ.
Now out of that 1000 copies, which one came with the original language (aramaic).
As we know by translating, mistake oftentimes comes in substitution of words, and peoples who conducting translation always have some predisposition in their original mother tongue and more
We have almost noting original by Aristotle. Everything we have are copies of copy-books produced by his disciples. Yet we do have and use his logic. and have a partial grasp of what he meant by metaphysics. a consist has emerged that we ought not discard,
the original language was greek, not aramaic
Thompson Barbara Lopez Charles Harris David
His voice is creamy
Bahahah
He gave a non-answer. He didn't discuss the fact that it took forty years for anonymous authors to write the Gospel of Mark, another decade for Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and yet another decade for the Gospel of John. The earliest Christian writings date to two decades after the crucifixion. (Even Paul admits he only heard from others about the Resurrection.) They were written by educated Greek-speaking writers living outside of Palestine, none of whom were eyewitnesses. Dr. Wright also didn't talk about how different the Gospels are on the most basic facts (like on what day Jesus died), and how theological embellishments play around with these facts to advance an agenda (such as the change in the Gospel of John of the date Jesus died to the day before Passover to portray him as the lamb of God). The kernel of truth is really small, and it's risky to weaken the historical-critical method.
Many ppl commented without reading Bart Ehrman’s books 😂😂
Bart Ehrman is wrong and has been disproven.
Is it dishonest to call something a “manuscript” when it’s a scrap papyrus with a sentence or two on it? I think so and also think saying there are “thousands” of manuscripts is completely dishonest as well - especially given the ages of the complete ones and the fact that most of them he is probably counting (that might be considered the most ancient) are scraps.
Fail by dishonesty and willful misrepresentation.
"manuscript" is a technical term.
@@offcenterconcepthaus The fact remains that the "thousands" of manuscripts Wright is talking about were written centuries later (copies of copies). They only thing they teach us is about medieval scribes.
Manuscripts for other books are also unreliable, but I won't go to Hell if I dont follow those other books. So the consequences of any other book being altered is almost nonexistent, whereas the consequences of the Bible being altered is much much more severe
I can imagine, that debating Ehrman was difficult for NT Wright, cause NT Wright really does not understand. Having massive amounts of copies from copies, without having the originals, does not add the slightest to their reliability. How hard is that to grasp? Kids learn the telephone game (or chinese whispers in the UK) in Kindergarden. It is the same thing.
Uh, we do have the earliest manuscripts in the original languages...no game of 'telephone'....
@@kevincaan2862 Oh really? Where did you get that from? Are you sure these are the complete originals from the authors, or are these later copies?
@@kevincaan2862 no, we don't. Not even close to that.
Because when you have thousands of games of telephone and they all basically agree or you get a vast majority of agreement, then that tells you about the original. Get it now?
@@mikewilliams6025 you are assuming that they agree and that when they were finally written down, the authors didnt just use the previous texts. It is very likely that Matthew and Luke by using Mark as a source.
There is no original Bible. Period. Very simple. You have to admit.
Why doesn't Jesus Just tell his followers who's right and who's wrong..... I mean they do have a "personal relationship" with him.
That's what I always say.
Why not all get together and ask him who is right.
"And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son" - John 14:13
Should be easy enough.
the message might still be lost by the scribes somehow.. or jesus just didnt know
@@thiranosaurus Ha.. Jesus didn't know!
Anybody know where I could find the podcast he references here where Wright and Ehrman dialogue?
I like how Bart Ehrman debates.....very professional without demeaning the other party beliefs.
I felt just the opposite. I watched an old interview where Bart debates Dinesh D’Souza. Bart didn’t keep in the spirit of debate and I felt like he allowed his anger and hostility to creep in. Of course it’s only my opinion but I felt Bart was trying to assign motive behind Dinesh’s intentions instead of simply debating him on the issues. He also make wild statements like “there is nothing after death” which he could never prove. I felt Bart to be a cold, joyless man who makes his identity about being against the existence of god. How can someone’s identity be dictated by something they don’t believe to exist?
@@optimal8155 Which God are you referring to? I am assuming you mean the one which was born to a married "Virgin"
I disagree. He debates to win, he doesn't pursue. Rather he likes to throw out a litany of arguments (each of which requires a 30 minute answer and cannot be responded to in one setting); so he tends to come off better to "win" the debate. I do appreciate his struggles with fundamentalism, however (which we should find problematic, imo!).
One of the disputed passages is at the end of Mark: "And they shall take up serpents..." It could be important, though.
*jolly well*
I think by that alone, he’d win any debate against Bart
Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals
there is no trinity in Christianity
In developing a knowledge of who YAHUSHUA HAMACHIACH (Jesus Christ) is, Trinitarians typically focus on establishing his title, which they say is YHWH elohim (god).
The trinity lie is one of the greatest deceptions invented by the false church in the history of Christianity. The Messiah, who came to make YHWH known, is now confused with the YHWH whom he made known
The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity LIE is that the Father is YHWH, the Son is YHWH, and the Holy Spirit is YHWH, and the three of them are co-equal, co-eternal, and share the same essence, and together those three individual “Persons” are one triune God; also, Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man, and both Jesus’ divine nature and his human nature live together in his flesh body. The doctrine of the Trinity, though widely believed, is never stated in the Bible.
TRINITY DEBUNKED:
The 10 Commandments of YHWH
1
I am YHWH your Elohim that brought you out of the land Mitsraim, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other elohim before me.
2
You shall not make unto you any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: You shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I YHWH your Elohim am a jealous Elohim, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
4
....For in six days YHWH made heaven and earth....
Colossians 1:15, Paul reminds us that YAHUSHUA is “the image of the invisible CREATOR.”
You worship images of YHWH and call the image YHWH
Romans 1:22 and 23
(22) Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
(23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal YHWH for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one Elohim, and one mediator between Elohim and men, the man Yahushua the Messiah
Matthew 22:37 - Yahushua said unto him, "Thou shalt love YHWH thy Elohim with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 - This is the first and great commandment."
Deuteronomy 6
6:4 Hear, O Israel: YHWH is our Elohim, YHWH is one:
6:5 And thou shalt love YHWH thy Elohim with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
John 5
5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
YHWH being our father and Yahushua’ not being descended from Adam, that he was genetically perfect-“the Last Adam.” Yahushua achieved behavioral perfection by continually choosing to subject his will to YHWH, his father, all the way to his last breath on the Cross (1 Cor. 15:45; Heb. 5:7).
John 17
17:1 These words spake Yahushua, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true Elohim, and Yahushua the Messiah, whom thou hast sent.
Acts 2
2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of YHWH shall be saved.
2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Yahushua of Nazareth, a man approved of Elohim among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which Elohim did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of Elohim, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
2:24 Whom Elohim hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
The word “Christ” means anointed. It is in the Greek, the same with “Messiah” in Hebrew, and implies that Yahushua was anointed by YHWH with the Holy Spirit and with power, to become a prince and a saviour, a prophet and a judge. It implies, therefore, very high distinction, but at the same time a distinction conferred by one higher than himself.
The son of YHWH is not YHWH the son. YHWH SAVES
The SON taught his true followers to pray to the Father, not himself:
Matthew 6
6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.
6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.
Luke 11
11:1 And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Rabbi, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.
11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
11:3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
11:4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
Yahushua is not ashamed to call us his “brothers,” because we have the same Father he does. The Bible teaches that we are “brothers” of Yahushua and “sons of Yahuwah.” Scripture never says or even infers that we are “brothers of YHWH.”
YAHUWAH has limitless knowledge, but the man Yahushua had limited knowledge.
Mark 13:32 (RVS)
“But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
The messiah received holy spirit at his baptism. If the man YAHUSHUA were ALMIGHTY YHWH and the holy spirit were YHWH, then YHWH would have been anointed with YHWH by YHWH. Thats how dumb your trinity cult is. By your logic "jesus is god" God had to give power to god"
If christians are so keen to confront the man, then debate him...don't do videos where he talks for a bit and then the commentators go on and on and he has no opportunity to reply....be a man!
Christians say "Jesus died for you".... But also say "he rose again"...... So which is it?... There is not one written eyewitness account of Jesus during his lifetime. Strange since he was famous at birth, because wise men expected to see the future king of Jews who was born from a virgin married mother. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, five hundred years ago, has maintained that the gospels were originally written in Greek from 70 to 140 CE (Mark after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John no earlier than 140 CE). This proves that they were not written by Christ's apostles, disciples or by any of the early Christians. Others say: “There is no proof of the Gospels existing before 130 CE” Jesus is depicted as hugely popular in the gospels. Yet he is unrecorded by non-Biblical historians. Paul was the first one to write about Jesus around 60CE; but he, like everyone else, never saw Jesus. He experienced a vision of the resurrected Jesus.
No one liked Jews. Strange that part of the world made one king.
The Greek and Roman Historians were Greek Mythologist. they were ten times crazier than Jews. Better throw all there records out to . Bye Zeus.
OH wait they don't have any original writings either.
Unfortunately (but forgivably), they're frequently conflating two separate issues here, both of which deserve a separate discussion: (1) The reliability of the various existing manuscripts to reflect what the original documents actually said ("Is this a reliable copy of the original document itself?"); and (2) the reliability of the original documents to reflect the historical events described therein ("Can these canonical gospels be trusted to communicate historical details about events that happened decades earlier?").
For the first topic, we can get into the Textual variants which Wright rightly suggests are generally minor (but not insignificant). For the second topic, we can get into the discrepancies between overlapping accounts of the same events, which Ehrman rightly suggests are occasionally irreconcilable from a literal-historical point of view.
Both scholars are making valid points, even when they disagree directly; but it's especially disappointing when they just talk past one another like this.
You make the wrong assumption the secular historical account in question is not wrong which has time and time and time and time again been proven the case over the biblical accounts. Look into that subject. The track record the biblical text has demonstrated gives us the confidence to trust the historicity of it's claims over any counter historical claim at this point as being correct. It's an either or issue, the biblical text is clearly more reliably always.
The numbers of non-original manuscripts is such a lame argument. He leads with this bit of silly fundamentalists apologists bologna? Terrible. Wright knows better than actually believe this. He is just weaseling out.
Thanks for uploading this video! Personally, I like NT Wright and value his opinion very much. First I want to make a practical comment, is this about the Gospels(as in the title) or about the New Testament as a whole(that is what they mentioning in the clip).
I think he didn't really react on the problem Bart Ehrman is mentioning. He compares it on the old argument that we have more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other manuscript, and therefore we have a solid ground(that is a fast conclusion). We don't have thousands and thousands of manuscripts of the first or second century. All those thousands go back to a handful of schools. And to say that it is about 1 or 2 is not really fair, it is a lot more than that(in the whole New Testament). I had hoped to get an answer that had a bit more nuanced.
Proof will remain elusive. Two impossible statements: We can be certain the text is authentic/corrupt. But you are correct: appealing to the confidence classicists have in other, vastly more poorly-attested sources sheds no light on the present question. I would add one thing, though: prior to Constantine's conversion, we know copies of the New Testament were actively destroyed in tandem with other forms of persecution. The number of surviving witnesses speaks both to how aggressively they must have been copied, if there were such efforts to destroy them, and secondly the availability of these texts for reference when making the ones that survived. Yes, it is (from our vantage) an argument from silence. But not from the perspective of the scribes who bequeathed to us such a rich textual history.
Sure thing that many scribes were famous for committing pious fraud, notwithstanding the fact that different cultures spewed out copious amount of stories and copies of copies decades later by unknown Christians who collected , combined and edited stories that became popular among early christian communities..What we know that within the first hundred years of the Christian era, not a single passage to be written as History or can be produced to show the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth...either by the great Philo, Josephus , Philosophers, Geographers and Historians. @@seedofwonder
@@lgree4627 "Sure thing that many scribes were famous for committing pious fraud, notwithstanding the fact that different cultures spewed out copious amount of stories and copies of copies decades later by unknown Christians who collected , combined and edited stories that became popular among early christian communities.."
No question about that. But the difference re: the New Testament is that, whereas we can confidently assume this happened with every religious group, guild, association, etc., we have so much textual evidence that can demonstrate which books, manuscript families, and variants were regarded as authoritative for which groups in a given region. Again, what you're saying is correct, but the reason we can know this with such clarity is because it was seldom the case that a "pious fraud" made its way into the copies of copies produced by rival groups. So when you have a reading that suddenly appears in 4th century Alexandria (e.g.) but NOT in Rome, Asia, Achaia, etc. you can easily deduce that it is secondary. And so what you have, as I mentioned above, are text families that descend from these communities and the variants they introduce to suit their doctrinal preferences, which is why there is no one manuscript that is to be treated as original. So the way text criticism works is that even some of the most "piously corrupt" editions contain original readings _in those places_ where they can be shown not to have been edited. This is true when you considered the additional witness of translations into other languages and parabiblical literature that comments on doctrinal debates in the early church (both local and wide).
"What we know that within the first hundred years of the Christian era, not a single passage to be written as History or can be produced to show the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth...either by the great Philo, Josephus , Philosophers, Geographers and Historians."
Depends what you mean. Greek versions of Josephus show signs of Christian editing that do not appear in, e.g., Syriac translations that pre-date those edits and were never brought into conformity with the few Greek MSS we have. But if you mean that, just because Josephus knows of a crucified man who started a movement, a detail he was obviously told about and didn't personally witness, and therefore it _proves_ nothing, I agree. If you think he didn't mention him at all, you are buying into a conspiracy theory.
Ehrman himself says that the og would only have a few minor sentences changes, a few dozen at most. Bart doesn’t consider it a massive deal, so better did Wright
Can you please get Bart Ehrman himself to answer N.T. Wright that would be a dope debate
All these scholars will simply vanish and leave not a trace behind.They are not even near what happened in the bible.They can debate from now to the end,it will simply end at nothingness.They will come and go,like all the others.
It's very easy to argue against BE when he's not present to offer a response. When he is, he just throws you around like a rag doll.
Agreed!
Enough of this. The NT is fake whether you like it or not.
Nonsense Bary can't see the wood for the trees
@@jennypraise4960 Bart is correct. The scirpture is only a fairy tale story
@Veiled Heat don't worry about aristotle. We're talking about the Bible aka word of God. This book is only a fairy tale. It is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise people as false and by the rulers as useful. Most preachers all over the place are just using this book to make money. It's a big business. This is pure fairy tale and lots of contradictions.
Does anyone wonder why WE HAVE ALL THESE COPIES AROUND 1800 YEARS OLD OR SO ... maybe around 200 to 300 ad...but then all these copies just a few hundred years older are ALL GONE....ANYONE THINKING maybe church fathers in play here...or other players that influence these books....In my opinion...if we really knew the truth of ALL THE PEOPLE WHO CHANGED..MODIFIED...INFLUENCED...these books...my head would spin around 360 degrees...That is based on my research from many of the Biblical Scholars....and information you will never hear from NT...who has no desire to be objective...Just like Mark's ending...and there is some evidence that some of the nostics had copies of originals that did not have birth narrative in Luke....WE KNOW FOR SURE....MEN WROTE THESE BOOKS...look around in society today....and any reasonable person would know that when they got together and discussed issues like the TRINITY (which is circular) they decided WHAT WAS SCRIPTURE AND WHAT WAS NOT....Please have NT tell me how that is DIVINE....
Whether they are original manuscripts or not fact is people would do anything to eliminate God so that they can live in their sins and justify it.
Or maybe another religion is right, islam. Quran an-Nisa verse 82: Do they not then reflect on the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have certainly found in it many contradictions.
@@asimdridi7272 oh shove your Quran up yours, Islam is a fake religion, Mohamed was possessed, if you think your religion is better than Christianity then how did chapter 53 verse 19-20 come about?
Take your backwards religion to the dump where it belongs
In Surah 53:19-21 Allah has raised questions/objection (in respect to the malpractices at that time 1. appointing more gods other than one Almighty 2. burring alive the female child in the ground in the name of god) and He (Allah) Himself gives the answer to these questions in Verse 22-23
19 Have you considered al-Lat and al-Uzza?
20 And Manat, the third one, the other?
21 Are you to have the males, and He the females?
22 What a bizarre distribution.
23 These (al-Lat and al-Uzza And Manat) are nothing but names, which you have devised, you and your ancestors, for which Allah sent down no authority. They follow nothing but assumptions, and what the ego desires, even though guidance has come to them from their Lord.
Conclusion:
Not be in hurry in raising equerries. We must read few verses in prefix and suffix to understand the verses in it’s complete context. Quran is word of Allah, free from any contradictions in itself.
@@feduntu In Surah 53:19-21 Allah has raised questions/objection (in respect to the malpractices at that time 1. appointing more gods other than one Almighty 2. burring alive the female child in the ground in the name of god) and He (Allah) Himself gives the answer to these questions in Verse 22-23
19 Have you considered al-Lat and al-Uzza?
20 And Manat, the third one, the other?
21 Are you to have the males, and He the females?
22 What a bizarre distribution.
23 These (al-Lat and al-Uzza And Manat) are nothing but names, which you have devised, you and your ancestors, for which Allah sent down no authority. They follow nothing but assumptions, and what the ego desires, even though guidance has come to them from their Lord.
Conclusion:
Not be in hurry in raising equerries. We must read few verses in prefix and suffix to understand the verses in it’s complete context. Quran is word of Allah, free from any contradictions in itself.
@@exolandarmyhowaboutthat6912 false here are the original verses
53:19 And do you know al-lat and al-manat
53:20 And al-uzza the third?
53:21 These are the high flying cranes who's interception is to be hoped for
Then mhmd went and prostrate with the pàģàñş and the jinns
According to Allah worshipping others beside him is an unforgivable sin(yet he calls him conduct of humanity)(clear contradiction), ergo mhmd shall go to hèĺĺ, why do you follow such a man? It was afterwards, there's no timeframe mentioned, chances are he had other revelations from şhàýtan that jibreel came to mhmd and "abrogated" *some* of the verses
And if you believe it's all fabrications then you have sura 22:52 to answer to
Two guys that got ravaged by Ehrman comparing war stories
Exactly my thought... I shake my head at NT's complaint about how Ehrman came back in a different direction...😖 So he acknowledges he was not able to simply handle what Ehrman had to provide.... NT needs at all neatly buttoned up for him to manage
Ehrman's own standards would suggest that we should stop believing that most of the known ancient figures even existed. He can't seem to notice the forest because of a tree.
Wrong. Do a little research before you start regurgitating fundie talking points.
"One of the wonderful things about having copies of copies of copies is" ... we can argue this bs round in circles forevermore, making a tidy living out of pretending we are discussing something of import, while the public eat this stuff up and generally become none the wiser.
I don’t know a single Catholic who thinks the Pope is indefectible 🙄
Templeton (after whom the award is named) and Ehrman have both cited losing faith in God over the issue of evil. The latter has done so much damage with his popularized books, including "Misquoting Jesus"! Will he feel the embarrassment Peter did, after the last crow cried, when he stands before the living Christ? I recall a depressed woman calling into a show, after Bart spoke about that particular text, asking, "What do we do now, if all we believed in wasn't true?" To which Ehrman responded (paraphrasing), "We always have our humanity... we always have those we love around us." This is exactly why we need to master apologetics... this is exactly why we need to research what wolves we're releasing our college-age children to!
Cheers, Uncle Tomo. Totally sound.
The end of Matthew is hardly trivial if it was - as most modern versions of the NT openly admit in the marginalia - a late addition from a hand not in the original (which of course we do not have anything close to).
Having hundreds of copies of a COPY that is decades after the original, with out having the original, is pretty useless in proving the copies are accurate to the original.
Not if they corroborate one another with great distances between the location of manuscripts. It makes it more sure, not less. The differences between manuscripts are not substantive and only exist in a considerable minority of over 3000 documents.
Totally agree man. Having thousands of copies of falsehoods doesn’t somehow make it authentic to the original truth. Just makes it a consistent falsehood.
@@iknowyourerightbut4986 exactly. The point the OP made about copies not necessarily being accurate is a good question to have. However, the obvious next step is to ask if there are differences between the copies. As you said, there aren't any major differences that are a serious concern. Also, it's interesting that those making that criticism of lots of copies being meaningless seem not to be textual criticism and manuscript study experts themselves...
Why should i answer to d. Ehrman?
Why can't i just read him then accept or refuse his ideas
Also your answer for the copies of copies of copies, are you serious!
Can't you just say: i have no answer.
It is easier and save time.
Please be honest
Its not adding a "gloss" its fabrication and forgeries - e.g. last 12 verses of Mark, 6 letters of Paul, the story in John with the woman taken into adultery etc
Revelation of Christ is key ..Today Mathew25v6 2:53 is the message of the hour preached by Philippe Kacou.
As an Englishman I'm qualified to say this many is very very English.
He did miss out that the New Testament is considered by those who believe it as a far more important work than some jolly nice poems.
I thought Prof. Bart said that the differences didn't compromise mainstream Christian beliefs, and stayed a Christian a long time after he initially lectured from his current standpoint
Matthew 23:34
[34]Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye will kill and crucify, and some of them ye will scourge in your synagogues, and will persecute from city to city;
Most of those thousands of thousands of copies that we have today come after the year 800.
Mark was written around the year 65 to 70... And we are nowhere close to having the originals. The earliest scrap of Mark we have is I believe p52.... And it's dated to around the year 250.
And the earliest copies had the most mistakes... And all of the copies that came hundreds of years afterwards we're copied from the ones that have the most mistakes.
There's no way we will ever know what your original text said or meant for that case.
Right on Brandon. In addition Dr Wright uses as justification for the reliability of the New Testament that we have many, many copies. While we do have many copies, Dr Ehrman points out the large majority were created much late,in the ninth century I believe. It's true these later copies are more consistent that the earlier copies. However, using sound logic we can extrapolate with some degree of certainty that the earliest copies in the 150 years between the autographs we don't have and the first copies we do have probably varied even more. So Dr Wright's support for the reliability of the New Testament we have today is suspect and Dr Ehrman's argument quite sound.
P52 was from John, and was from between 90 and 180 AD.
@@bobs4429 thats the trick. It isnt what's said...its what isnt said.
Easy to convince someone...and rasy to be convinced when your audience/you are unaware of the massive hole that's being ignored
We use textual criticism to find the original meaning/text
@jpapan1 Speaking of massive holes, one lies in the strain of argument sustained by many in this comment thread, in that the very broad terms “corruption” and “variation” have not been narrowed down to precise phenomena. Indeed, Ehrman’s own admonition of caution warrant against the more conspiratorial of judgements expressed by some internet skeptics, as cited in this article which tackles the issue in brevity well, www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.php.